Back Talk: Let's Draft Babies So We Never Have to Fight Another War: "It would have sounded like war mongering to confront Hitler in 1938. Had we done that, and had 10 million civilians and 2 million soldiers died before we achieved victory, historians might have labeled the effort a disasterous miscalculation. But that's only because the human imagination would have never been able to conceive of what actually happened thanks to our reluctance to engage a growing threat: 24 million soldiers killed along with 32 million civilians.

So, although it's fair to say that it is all too easy to call for war when your own children don't have to do the fighting, it's equally fair to say that it is all too easy to stick your head in the sand and pretend that a threat doesn't exist when it does. The latter error is the one that Charlie Rangel wants to make in the future, but he should try not to lose sight of the fact that 56 million people died the last time we made that error."

I'm not sure I follow his logic. So we won't go to war on "flimsy" evidence in the future if the people fighting in it are draftees? As opposed to now, when it's perfectly acceptable to fight a war on flimsy evidence because the soldiers enlisted?

Does this make a shred of sense? I would have thought we wouldn't fight any war unless it was necessary, regardless of who does the fighting. LIkewise, an "unnecessary" war would never be absolved by the presence or absence of volunteers.

Let's not forget, a great many of the states mightily resisted sending troops to help the Union army. Does that make the war any less just?

Rangel, I'm sorry to say, is an idiot. But he's a particular kind of idiot who inhabits the leadership ranks of the Mediacrats in that he hails from a poor minority district where the voters are so gullible they actually think he's an intellectual.

This idiocy by Rangel and the dopes who listen to him touches on too many untruths to count. But I'll mention two that I particularly loathe.

1 - the "poor" and minorities do a disproportionate amount of the dying in war. True back when we had the draft but not while we have a volunteer force. Wealthier people have more resources to put into draft avoidance. They also have higher educational levels so that when they don't avoid the draft entirely they are still more likely to perform non-frontline roles such as managing logistics programs, training, etc.

If you want fewer of the poor and poorly educated to die when we fight wars then stick to a volunteer military. Then the poor and poorly educated can blather among themselves and refuse to serve to fight "rich men's wars".

2. It is the Republican Warmongers (tm) who are the rich people escaping service. Apparently there is nothing that can rid us of this "The Rich People are Republicans" myth. No matter how many millionairs billionairs line up for the Democrats the nation continues to believe the Dems are the Party of the Little Man. What hogwash.

Should this bill ever see the light of day the Blue State Elitists and the poorest among us will be the ones screaming the loudest to make sure it is defeated. The folks who would never consider volunteering, under any circumstances, will be the ones most dead set against a draft.

This is a Dem GOTV drive, pure and simple. And their constituents are the ones dumb enough to come out in hordes to vote against something only the people claiming to care about them are cynical enough to suggest.

Fortunately it is unlikely this thing would ever see the light of day. When forced last time even Rangel voted against it. As the Rev. Sensing noted, this one is glued to the bottom of the committee inbox.

Actually it is glued to the desk under the inbox. The inbox is then lagbolted to the desk.